I don't understand this irrational hatred of guns. Guns are tools. Limiting access to guns doesn't address the real issue: why are people intent on killing each other? There was lots of murder before guns and if you succeed in getting them banned, there will still be lots of murder.
I won't speak for anyone else here. I don't want them banned. I want them registered, and their rifling recorded at sale, I want background checks at every single sale, and I want owners to be licensed just as drivers are.
I don't understand this irrational hatred of government. Governments are tools. Limiting the size of government doesn't address the real issue: why are governments incompetent and corrupt? There was lots of incompetence and corruption before government and if you succeed in shrinking it, there will still be lots of incompetence and corruption.
Doesn't really address what I wrote, but I wasn't really being serious either. As for being voluntary, if we're trying to get as close to apples to apples as possible here, and if I were anti-gun and/or pro-gun control (I'm not), I'd say "I cannot live in this country without the threat of guns. That's non-voluntary."
It may be non-voluntary, but so are a lot of things that keep us safe. Your lifetime 1 in 340 chance of being killed by a firearm is prophylactic against your roughly 1 in 10 lifetime chance of being murdered by your government.
PROTIP: I was trolling trog, who is notoriously anti-government, using his own argument. I even ruined the joke by saying as much in my previous comment, as well as stating that I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun control. I won't even bother asking for sources on your questionable statistics -- that's how much I don't care.
Not sure how you got that from my previous comment. I just don't understand the point of your first comment. Did you think I was making an argument to solicit debate? Were you just using my comment to work some things out for yourself or perhaps to solicit debate from others? Trog's response was logically inconsistent with my tongue-in-cheek reply as well as with his own argument, hence my reply.
Like I said, I don't care about guns, or big/small government arguments, so I'm not sure how it could have been construed otherwise. Moreover, your reply didn't even contradict anything I said, making it even more puzzling.
Statistics don't work both ways in your world? If the chance is 1 in 10 of a person getting murdered by the government, then 1 in 10 will be murdered by the government.
Wrong! Perhaps this less politically loaded example will help you understand:
Something like 500 million people have lived in the United States since its foundation. In the entire history of the United States, no person has ever been killed by a meteor strike. So you might think your lifetime chance of being killed by a meteor must be on the order of 1 in 500 million or less. But that would be wrong. The reason it would be wrong is because it's sampling too short a time period. A meteor strike is a low-probability, high-risk event. About once every 100 million years, a 5-10 KM object hits the planet. If you figure you're going to live another 50 years, your chance of dying from a meteor strike is more like 1 in 2 million — much greater than the 1 in 500 million or less that a naive analysis suggests. And this does not mean that 1 person out of every 2 million will be killed by meteors. If it happens to one person, it most likely happens to all of us, or at least a bunch of us, at the same time.
Democide is also a low-probability, high-risk event. But first of all, a mea culpa: your lifetime chance of being killed by democide is closer to 1 in 30, not 1 in 10. We can arrive at this by dividing the number of people killed by democide during the 20th Century (about 300 million) by the number of people who lived on the planet during the 20th Century (around 9 billion). Your lifetime chance of being killed by firearm assault is something you can easily look up. And it's much smaller than 1 in 30.
We could argue about whether or not the 20th Century is representative or predictive, or whether private firearm ownership (which may or may not come at the price of a higher homicide rate) is actually prophylactic against democide. But those are the only things to argue about. The historical relative danger is unquestionable.
You said my government, not any government. How about we divide the number of Americans murdered (because that's what you said) by the American government by the number of Americans who have lived? I'll wager your mea culpa would have to be a lot louder. Unless 50 million Americans have been killed by the American government, I call bullshit. Excuse me 1 in 30, 17 million.
To argue that, you have to presume that the US is different from the rest of the world in some fundamental way that precludes democide from occurring here. That's a pretty big assumption, not least of all because democide has occurred here. Just not to white people... yet.
The US of A is indeed fundamentally different from states such as Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany or Communist China, where massive killings of citizens have taken place. And no, you may not include the 20 million native Americans. Most of them were killed by Europeans before we were even a nation.
Just looking at the examples in the cartoon, it should be evident that people aren't just shooting each other for the purpose of killing. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, it still serves a point.
- Thought the gun was empty, shot themselves/others - Fearing intruder, man shot son. - Dementia patient kills another person. - 3 year old shoots self - dropped gun goes off - thought gun was empty - 5 year old thought gun was a toy
Add to that the 2 self injury incidences...yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
1 - crazy 2 - bad parent / guardian 3 - crazy (presumably) 4 - fucking stupid * 5 - crazy 6 - clumsy 7 - bad parent / guardian 8 - Criminal! 9 - Criminal! 10 - bad parent / guardian 11 - crazy AND bad guardian 12 - fucking stupid 13 - bad parent / guardian, maybe crazy 14 - bad parent / guardian, fucking stupid
* also known as 'ignored one of the four cardinal rules of firearm safety'; see http://www.paul.net/guns/rules.html (http://www.paul.net/guns/rules.html)
IN summary: all these people died because someone else was not paying attention to them before someone got killed. Someone ignored a warning sign, someone said, "oh, it's just a phase", someone said, "not my problem", someone was careless. It's not about the guns; it's never about the guns. It's about human actions and human screw-ups.
all these people died because someone else was not paying attention to them before someone got killed.
....and? That's 95% of the human race you're talking about there. I guess it's a point, but it's sort of a moot one as I see it. Human nature is human nature; you can't change it. The only thing you can do to mitigate it is enact harsh laws, use harsh enforcement, and have harsher punishments.
I would say, only the fucking stupid ones for sure. You can murder someone with all kinds of stuff- and a baseball bat to the head or a stab wound is no less potentially deadly than a firearm. And you know what happens if you leave your back gate unlocked and a neighbor kid falls in your pool and drowns? You get sued- even though it was really the kid's guardian who was at fault for not guardian-ing better.
But your comment brings something to mind: you are suggesting that removing the gun from the equation would have prevented these instances. And yeah- if no one had guns then no one would ever get shot.
So much for that "No one is trying to take your guns" claim.
No-one with a modicum of common sense is trying to take your guns. If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear, I would, but it's never going to happen. The point, which you and yours love to gloss over, is that while guns certainly don't kill people by themselves, they make it a lot easier for cowards to kill. And no kid is going to pick up a baseball bat and accidentally bash his kid sister's head in. You have a gun? You are more likely to die by one. So is your kid.
And a gun owner's chances of dying by their own gun is about the same as getting struck by lightning. That is the point gun-grabbers like to gloss over: probability.
That and the idea that the police cannot always be there in time, and no one is obligated to be a victim. That last bit goes both ways.
Just like a robocall makes it easier to annoy more people at a faster rate than a megaphone does, a gun makes it possible to kill more people at a faster rate than a knife does. The problem is in the way it scales compared to other tools.
Hating robocalls and wishing for them to be outlawed is not irrational. Hating guns and wishing for them to be outlawed is not irrational.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 07:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 02:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 06:20 pm (UTC)Like I said, I don't care about guns, or big/small government arguments, so I'm not sure how it could have been construed otherwise. Moreover, your reply didn't even contradict anything I said, making it even more puzzling.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 06:27 pm (UTC)Whether or not that was your intention, that is what you did.
"Were you just using my comment . . . to solicit debate from others?"
That is what we do here.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 01:30 am (UTC)Something like 500 million people have lived in the United States since its foundation. In the entire history of the United States, no person has ever been killed by a meteor strike. So you might think your lifetime chance of being killed by a meteor must be on the order of 1 in 500 million or less. But that would be wrong. The reason it would be wrong is because it's sampling too short a time period. A meteor strike is a low-probability, high-risk event. About once every 100 million years, a 5-10 KM object hits the planet. If you figure you're going to live another 50 years, your chance of dying from a meteor strike is more like 1 in 2 million — much greater than the 1 in 500 million or less that a naive analysis suggests. And this does not mean that 1 person out of every 2 million will be killed by meteors. If it happens to one person, it most likely happens to all of us, or at least a bunch of us, at the same time.
Democide is also a low-probability, high-risk event. But first of all, a mea culpa: your lifetime chance of being killed by democide is closer to 1 in 30, not 1 in 10. We can arrive at this by dividing the number of people killed by democide during the 20th Century (about 300 million) by the number of people who lived on the planet during the 20th Century (around 9 billion). Your lifetime chance of being killed by firearm assault is something you can easily look up. And it's much smaller than 1 in 30.
We could argue about whether or not the 20th Century is representative or predictive, or whether private firearm ownership (which may or may not come at the price of a higher homicide rate) is actually prophylactic against democide. But those are the only things to argue about. The historical relative danger is unquestionable.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:32 am (UTC)Unless 50 million Americans have been killed by the American government, I call bullshit.
Excuse me 1 in 30, 17 million.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:48 am (UTC)I give up.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 12:57 am (UTC)Just looking at the examples in the cartoon, it should be evident that people aren't just shooting each other for the purpose of killing. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, it still serves a point.
- Thought the gun was empty, shot themselves/others
- Fearing intruder, man shot son.
- Dementia patient kills another person.
- 3 year old shoots self
- dropped gun goes off
- thought gun was empty
- 5 year old thought gun was a toy
Add to that the 2 self injury incidences...yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 01:33 am (UTC)1 - crazy
2 - bad parent / guardian
3 - crazy (presumably)
4 - fucking stupid *
5 - crazy
6 - clumsy
7 - bad parent / guardian
8 - Criminal!
9 - Criminal!
10 - bad parent / guardian
11 - crazy AND bad guardian
12 - fucking stupid
13 - bad parent / guardian, maybe crazy
14 - bad parent / guardian, fucking stupid
* also known as 'ignored one of the four cardinal rules of firearm safety'; see http://www.paul.net/guns/rules.html (http://www.paul.net/guns/rules.html)
IN summary: all these people died because someone else was not paying attention to them before someone got killed. Someone ignored a warning sign, someone said, "oh, it's just a phase", someone said, "not my problem", someone was careless. It's not about the guns; it's never about the guns. It's about human actions and human screw-ups.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 04:05 am (UTC)....and? That's 95% of the human race you're talking about there.
I guess it's a point, but it's sort of a moot one as I see it. Human nature is human nature; you can't change it. The only thing you can do to mitigate it is enact harsh laws, use harsh enforcement, and have harsher punishments.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 09:03 pm (UTC)But your comment brings something to mind: you are suggesting that removing the gun from the equation would have prevented these instances. And yeah- if no one had guns then no one would ever get shot.
So much for that "No one is trying to take your guns" claim.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 11:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-18 10:29 pm (UTC)That and the idea that the police cannot always be there in time, and no one is obligated to be a victim. That last bit goes both ways.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 05:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 07:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 06:38 pm (UTC)Hating robocalls and wishing for them to be outlawed is not irrational. Hating guns and wishing for them to be outlawed is not irrational.